feat: ignore supplied password for passwordless room servers #901
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
muesli
force-pushed
the
passwordless-room
branch
from
9901602 to
6d65465
Compare
muesli
force-pushed
the
passwordless-room
branch
from
6d65465 to
1dba6cd
Compare
|
This would break |
It would change the behavior under one specific condition, but I don't think I would call it a breaking change. Let's look at the different read-only scenarios for servers that have...
This leaves us with only the fourth option, which actually changes its behavior. When no password is set & read-only is enabled, the read-only mode now never gets enabled, because any password gets accepted. I'd argue this is still a positive change, as the previous behavior didn't provide any protection or a true "read-only" mode for guests. Specifying an empty password would still result in write access currently. Appreciate a review! Am I overlooking something? |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
If the password is intentionally left empty, we can assume the operator wants this room server to be public. In such cases it's less frustrating for users to simply accept any password.
A neater solution might be introducing a separate build flag that explicitly enables password-less public room servers, but the downside is that it requires a separate firmware image or custom build, whereas this solution works for any room server that's already configured without a password. We could think about adding a special case for the "hello" password as well.
Just thinking out loud: we could introduce a separate type indicator (chat, repeater, room, public room) for password-less servers that skips the login procedure altogether to further improve the user experience. Another alternative to that might be a quick status request that indicates if the room server is up and whether it requires authentication.